[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: How to rise the secondary? (fwd)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1998 08:44:16 -0500
From: "Barton B. Anderson" <mopar-at-uswest-dot-net>
To: Tesla List <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
Subject: Re: How to rise the secondary? (fwd)
Malcolm,
Tesla List wrote:
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 08:45:55 +1200
> From: Malcolm Watts <MALCOLM-at-directorate.wnp.ac.nz>
> To: Tesla List <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
> Subject: Re: How to rise the secondary? (fwd)
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> > Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 10:53:35 -0700 (PDT)
> > From: Michael Nolley <mhnolley-at-willamette.edu>
> > To: Tesla List <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
> > Cc: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> > Subject: Re: How to rise the secondary? (fwd)
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 14 Jul 1998, Tesla List wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > An interesting question has been raised by the proceedings
> > between John and the rest of the group-- does theory determine practice,
> > or the reverse? Western science has in some ways been the history of
> > Johns and Malcoms, those who prefer to rely upon previously existing
> > theories, the truth of which they often times aren't willing to question,
> > and those who question established theory, often times without the
> > clarity of knowledge that the former display.
>
> Dear me. I think you do me an injustice :( I do actually build and
> fire coils. In fact, the thoughts I put onto the list are the endpoint
> rationalization of experimental results. The theory I espouse is a
> serious attempt to make sense of what I see in practice. Of course I
> am not alone. I have taken on board the great ideas of many others
> who also have added to the big picture through countless hours in
> the lab.
>
> > The sometimes unresolvable
> > dialectic between these two forces could be evidenced by Galileo's
> > struggle against the Catholic church and the predominance of the
> > Aristotelian world view, or the apparent battle in modern physics
> > between determinism and chaos theory. The point is-- neither side has a
> > monopoly on truth-- a deterministic and "complete" theory which although
> > structurally sound may not reflect the true operation of the Tesla coil, or
> > the indeterminacy of as-yet-unformulated practical rules.
> > John, I was reacting to your comment "What you are saying contradicts
> > what theory says"
>
> >From both a theoretical and practical standpoint, there is no way the
> transfer is lossless. I have posted on this a number of times. Perhaps
> I should simply shut up and be satisfied with what I know.
>
> Malcolm
> <snip>
Malcolm,
I and countless others know the valuable contributions you have made. You are
*highly* respected for your work in all realms of TC's including building,
measurements, experiments, theory, and making sense of your results. Please don't
"shut up" due to "one person's" use of words. I'm sure Michael had no intent to
discredit, but when you are used in his example, it can definately feel that way.
Bart